[[!meta date="2017-05-08"]]
[[!meta author="Tyler Cipriani"]]
[[!meta copyright="""
Copyright &copy; 2017 Tyler Cipriani
"""]]
[[!meta title="What I Told the FCC"]]
[[!tag computing]]

I think that new FCC proposal for "[Restoring Internet
Freedom](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:17-108)" would
completely destroy the internet. Should this proposal go any further, the
internet will no longer be recognizable within a very short amount of time. I'm
worried that I will no longer have a place on the internet because my internet
activity and work isn't designed to invade people's homes and privacy to sell
them things they don't need. Non-profits on the internet are dead.

This proposal is entirely rent-seeking by big ISPs. ISPs will make more
money without providing any additional service for users, and the FCC would be
enabling it all.

> <h2 style="color: red">Big Disclaimer</h2>
>
> This is a post where I feel it is important to make absolutely clear that my
> views are my own and do not represent the views of my employer(s past or
> present)

My comments to the FCC
---

The FCC has opened their proposal to [public
comment](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:17-108) and I
encourage you to do so.

Here's what I wrote:

> I am a Colorado resident and I've worked as an internet engineer for my
> entire professional career (small disclaimer that my views are my own and do
> not represent those of my employer), and I'm worried that new FCC rules may
> allow large ISPs to destroy the internet.
>
> The current state of the internet is possible because ISPs aren't selling
> tiers of websites to their users. If we create internet fast-lanes, then we
> create a tiered internet. This is currently the way cable channels already
> work: if you just want CNN and ESPN you can pay one amount, but if you want
> HBO you pay a little more. The problem is that the internet is constantly in
> flux, there are constantly new websites being built. This is a major driver
> of economic growth and is good for everyone who uses the internet.
>
> If you start offering internet fast-lanes, internet tiers become possible: if
> you just want Facebook and Google then you pay one amount, but if you want
> Wikipedia you pay a little more. Ipso facto, Wikipedia is unavailable to a
> portion of the internet population.
>
> There may be those who make the argument that this is how the free market
> works: if Wikipedia were good, people would be willing to pay more for it;
> however, this artificial choice between Google and Wikipedia is only made
> possible by a perversion of the design of the internet. Bits of information
> are bits of information, an ISP is arguing that websites should pay more
> while it offers the same service. ISPs want Netflix to pay more than Google
> for them to move 100 bytes from the internet backbone to your house. Moving
> 100 bytes from the backbone to someone's house, the so-called "last mile", is
> same amount of work whether those bytes are from Google or Netflix so why
> should Netflix have to pay more?
>
> Meanwhile, large ISPs that move bits from the internet backbone over the
> "last mile" do not compete with one another by means of designed but unspoken
> collusion. The suggestion that an internet user should have to choose between
> Google and my blog is being made by companies that make all of their money by
> rent-seeking and now demand more money for less service. Consumers are not
> being protected, only ISP shareholders are.
>
> This proposal has the net-effect of censoring the internet so that only
> websites that have enough money to pay protection fees to ISPs will be
> available to people. This proposal is censorship that stifles freedom and
> innovation and will destroy the internet.

/me drops mic.
